Archive : Volume - 4, Issue - 9, Month - September
1 Influence of Knowledge, Attitudes and Access of Contraceptive Methods on Unmet Need for Family Planning Among Women of Reproductive Age in Rubavu District, Rwanda.
- BIKORIMANA Emmanuel*
- Abstract
- Show Article
- Download : 195
- Certificate
Abstract : ABSTRACT
Background: While achievements have been gained with modern contraceptive use rising from 10% in 2005 to 47.5% in 2015 with a resultant fall in fertility from 6.1 children per woman to 4.2 children in Rwanda, there remain some challenges. The current study identified the influence of knowledge, attitude, accessibility and availability of contraceptive methods on unmet need for family planning among women of reproductive age in Rubavu District, Rwanda.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried among 270 women (15–49 years) attending public health facilities in western province, Rubavu district. Semi-structured questionnaires were used to measure knowledge, attitudes and accessibility of contraceptive methods. The outcome variable was unmet need for family planning (unmet need for spacing and limiting births).Bivariate analysis was done for the independent variable with the dependent variable then multiple logistic regressions was computed. To identify the independent effects of independent variables to unmet need for contraception, the Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval was computed and statistical significance was defined when p-value was less than 0.05.
Results: The overall prevalence of unmet was 46.6% (Unmet need for spacing 27.78% and unmet need for limiting 18.9%). After adjusting for other variables, contraceptive methods improve standard of life (OR = 0.445, 95 % CI =0.222-0.092 , P =0.023 , Family Planning (F P) methods cause weakness (OR = 2.879, 95 % CI =1.428-5.805, P =0.003; joint decision to use FP (OR =0.472 , 95 % CI =0.286-0.778 , P =0.003 ), decision to use FP taken by husband (OR =2.703 , 95 % CI =1.320-5.536 , P =0.007 , were significantly associated with unmet for spacing . While FP methods cause headache (OR = 2.240, 95 % CI =1.068-4.696, P =0.033 joint decision to use FP (OR =0.561, 95 % CI =0.367-0.858, P =0.008), decision to use FP taken by husband (OR =2.283, 95 % CI =1.078-4.856, P =0.032 for unmet need for limiting)
Conclusion: The attitudes that FP methods cause weakness, FP methods cause headache and decision to use FP taken by husband increase unmet need for family planning.
Keyword : Knowledge, Attitude, Access, Contraception, Unmet Need for Family Planning, Women of Reproductive Age.
Login
Loading....
Author Guideline
Copyright Form
News Update
Archive List
- Volume-11
- Volume-10
- January 2023 Issue 1
- January 2023 Issue 1
- February 2023 Issue 2
- March 2023 Issue 3
- March 2023 Issue 3
- April 2023 Issue 4
- April 2023 Issue 4
- May 2023 Issue 5
- May 2023 Issue 5
- May 2023 Issue 5
- June 2023 Issue 6
- June 2023 Issue 6
- July 2023 Issue 7
- July 2023 Issue 7
- August 2023 Issue 8
- August 2023 Issue 8
- September 2023 Issue 9
- October 2023 Issue 10
- November 2023 Issue 11
- December 2023 Issue 12
- Volume-9
- January 2022 Issue 1
- February 2022 Issue 2
- March 2022 Issue 3
- April 2022 Issue 4
- May 2022 Issue 5
- June 2022 Issue 6
- July 2022 Issue 7
- July 2022 Issue 7
- July 2022 Issue 7
- July 2022 Issue 7
- August 2022 Issue 8
- September 2022 Issue 9
- October 2022 Issue 10
- October 2022 Issue 10
- November 2022 Issue 11
- November 2022 Issue 11
- November 2022 Issue 11
- December 2022 Issue 12
- Volume-8
- January 2021 Issue 1
- February 2021 Issue 2
- February 2021 Issue 2
- March 2021 Issue 3
- April 2021 Issue 4
- May 2021 Issue 5
- June 2021 Issue 6
- June 2021 Issue 6
- June 2021 Issue 6
- July 2021 Issue 7
- August 2021 Issue 8
- September 2021 Issue 9
- October 2021 Issue 10
- November 2021 Issue 11
- December 2021 Issue 12
- Volume-7
- January 2020 Issue 1
- January 2020 Issue 1
- February 2020 Issue 2
- March 2020 Issue 3
- March 2020 Issue 3
- March 2020 Issue 3
- April 2020 Issue 4
- April 2020 Issue 4
- May 2020 Issue 5
- May 2020 Issue 5
- May 2020 Issue 5
- June 2020 Issue 6
- June 2020 Issue 6
- June 2020 Issue 6
- July 2020 Issue 7
- August 2020 Issue 8
- September 2020 Issue 9
- October 2020 Issue 10
- November 2020 Issue 11
- December 2020 Issue 12
- December 2020 Issue 12
- Volume-6
- January 2019 Issue 1
- February 2019 Issue 2
- March 2019 Issue 3
- April 2019 Issue 4
- April 2019 Issue 4
- May 2019 Issue 5
- May 2019 Issue 5
- June 2019 Issue 6
- June 2019 Issue 6
- July 2019 Issue 7
- July 2019 Issue 7
- August 2019 Issue 8
- September 2019 Issue 9
- September 2019 Issue 9
- September 2019 Issue 9
- October 2019 Issue 10
- November 2019 Issue 11
- November 2019 Issue 11
- November 2019 Issue 11
- December 2019 Issue 12
- Volume-5
- January 2018 Issue 1
- January 2018 Issue 1
- February 2018 Issue 2
- March 2018 Issue 3
- April 2018 Issue 4
- May 2018 Issue 5
- June 2018 Issue 6
- July 2018 Issue 7
- August 2018 Issue 8
- September 2018 Issue 9
- September 2018 Issue 9
- October 2018 Issue 10
- October 2018 Issue 10
- November 2018 Issue 11
- December 2018 Issue 12
- December 2018 Issue 12
- Volume-4
- January 2017 Issue 1
- February 2017 Issue 2
- February 2017 Issue 2
- March 2017 Issue 3
- April 2017 Issue 4
- April 2017 Issue 4
- May 2017 Issue 5
- June 2017 Issue 6
- June 2017 Issue 6
- June 2017 Issue 6
- June 2017 Issue 6
- July 2017 Issue 7
- August 2017 Issue 8
- August 2017 Issue 8
- September 2017 Issue 9
- October 2017 Issue 10
- November 2017 Issue 11
- December 2017 Issue 12
- December 2017 Issue 12
- December 2017 Issue 12
- Volume-3
- January 2016 Issue 1
- February 2016 Issue 2
- March 2016 Issue 3
- April 2016 Issue 4
- May 2016 Issue 5
- June 2016 Issue 6
- June 2016 Issue 6
- July 2016 Issue 7
- July 2016 Issue 7
- July 2016 Issue 7
- August 2016 Issue 8
- September 2016 Issue 9
- October 2016 Issue 10
- October 2016 Issue 10
- November 2016 Issue 11
- November 2016 Issue 11
- December 2016 Issue 12
- Volume-2
- Volume-1
Statastics
Download of Articles
115,509